State v. Martis’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably State v. Scaife (2008), State v. Kesselring (2005)
2 federal appellate · 58 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Davis v. Alaska · Chambers v. Mississippi · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · McMillan v. Pennsylvania
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The constitutionality of a statute is presumed, all doubts must be resolved in favor of its validity, and before the statute may be stricken it must clearly appear the statute violates the constitution. In determining constitutionality, it is the court’s duty to uphold a statute under attack rather than defeat it, and if there is any reasonable way to construe the statute as constitutionally valid, that should be done.” State v. Martis, 277 Kan. 267, 298 , 83 P.3d 1216 (2002).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Premeditation means to have thought over the matter beforehand, in other words, to have formed the design or intent to kill before the act. Although there is no specific time period required for premeditation, the concept of premeditation requires more than the instantaneous, intentional act of taking another's life."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Lawrence · State v. Scaife“Did the statement in Instruction No. 7 that '[p]remeditation means to have thought over the matter beforehand for any length of time sufficient to form an intent to act' make K.S.A. 21-3401(a) constitutionally vague under the facts herein? No. Groschang told Thompson it was necessary to kill [the victim]. Groschang then left the house armed with a weapon intending to kill [the victim]. It took the defendant at least 45 minutes to drive to the fairgrounds. He climbed over a fence, opened the car door and fired five shots into the head of the sleeping victim. The jury found Groschang had the necessary mental capacity to form criminal intent to kill the victim. There is no evidence of second-degree intentional murder. The only evidence is that Groschang committed premeditated murder.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Stanley
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.